(HC) Spencer v. People of the State of California et al, No. 2:2005cv02456 - Document 112 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/02/10 denying 109 Motion for access to the court. Petitioner's objections to the 08/09/10 findings and recommendations are due within 45 days of the date of this order. No further requests for extension of time will be granted. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Spencer v. People of the State of California et al Doc. 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THURMAN LEROY SPENCER, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, No. 2: 05-cv-2456 GEB KJN P vs. ROY CASTRO, et al., Respondents. ORDER / On August 9, 2010, the undersigned recommended that petitioner’s application for 17 a writ of habeas corpus be denied. On September 22, 2010, petitioner filed objections to the 18 findings and recommendations stating that he could not prepare objections because he was 19 missing relevant legal property. On September 22, 2010, petitioner also filed a motion 20 requesting that prison officials provide him with boxes # 3 and # 6 of his legal property that were 21 removed from his cell on February 11, 2010. 22 On September 28, 2010, respondent was ordered to respond to petitioner’s claim 23 that he was being denied access to his legal property. On October 4, 2010, respondent informed 24 that court that petitioner was not allowed to have his legal property in his cell because he was a 25 program failure. Respondent informed the court that prison officials were unable to provide 26 petitioner with his legal property because he refused to identify which particular documents from 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 his legal property he required access to in order to prepare his objections. 2 On October 6, 2010, the undersigned ordered prison officials to provide petitioner 3 with access to boxes # 3 and # 6 of his legal property within fourteen days. If respondent could 4 not identify these boxes, petitioner was to provide respondent with more specific information 5 regarding what legal property he required to prepare his objections. Petitioner was granted forty- 6 five days to file his objections. 7 On October 25, 2010, petitioner filed a “notice” stating that he was being denied 8 access to his legal property. (Dkt. No. 108.) This pleading was signed by petitioner on October 9 8, 2010. On October 25, 2010, petitioner filed a motion stating that he was in danger and still 10 being denied access to his legal property. (Dkt. No. 109.) In this pleading, signed by petitioner 11 on October 20, 2010, petitioner now states that he requires access to all seven of his boxes of 12 legal property in order to prepare his objections. 13 Petitioner’s safety concerns raised in his October 25, 2010 motion cannot be 14 addressed in this habeas action. Petitioner may file a civil rights action addressing his concerns 15 regarding his conditions of confinement. Regarding his claim regarding inadequate access to 16 legal property, the undersigned observes that petitioner does not claim that he is being denied 17 access to boxes # 3 and # 6, as ordered by this court on October 6, 2010. To the extent petitioner 18 requires access to documents not contained in these boxes, he shall inform prison officials what 19 documents he requires from the other boxes. Prison officials will then provide petitioner with 20 these documents. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Petitioner’s motion for access to the court (Dkt. No. 109) is denied; 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 2 1 2. Petitioner’s objections to the August 9, 2010 findings and recommendations 2 are due within forty-five days of the date of this order. No further requests for extension of time 3 will be granted. 4 DATED: November 2, 2010 5 6 7 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 sp2456.acc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
